Julian Rotter's theory is based on the assumption that cognitive factors contribute to the formation of a person's response to influences. environment. Rotter rejects the concept of classical behaviorism, according to which behavior is shaped by immediate reinforcements, unconditionally derived from the environment, and believes that the main factor determining the nature of human activity is its expectations about the future.
Rotter's main contribution to modern psychology, of course, the formulas developed by him have become, on the basis of which forecasting is possible human behavior. Rotter argued that the key to predicting behavior is our knowledge, past history and expectations, and insisted that human behavior can best be predicted by looking at a person's relationship with the environment that matters to him.
The main task of Rotter's theory of social learning is the prediction of purposeful human behavior in difficult situations. As an interactionist, Rotter believes that people interact with the environment that is meaningful to them. A person's response to environmental events depends on the significance or importance attributed to those events. Reinforcements do not depend only on external stimuli, they get their value due to the thinking abilities of a person. In the same way, personality traits, such as needs or traits, cannot be the sole cause of behavior. Rotter believed that human behavior stems from the interaction of environmental factors and personality characteristics.
According to Rotter's assumption, the personality is fundamentally one, that is, it has relative stability, but its properties are not established or defined at any particular period of development, on the contrary, they can be changed or modified as long as a person is able to learn. We learn from past experience, but it is not an absolute constant, but changes under the influence of new impressions that affect perception in each this moment. That is, personality is formed by learning.
The key to predicting human behavior is our knowledge, past history and expectations. Behavior can be predicted by considering the relationship of a person with the environment that is significant for him.
Personality is formed by learning (learning), its properties can be modified as long as a person is able to learn, but at its core, personality is relatively stable and unified.
Motivation is goal-directed, that is, people are driven not by the desire to reduce stress or enjoy, but by the expectation that actions will bring them closer to the goal.
Rotter believes that people can use their mental abilities to anticipate a sequence of events leading to some future goal, and the ultimate goal contributes to the reinforcement value of each event in the sequence. As a criterion for evaluating reinforcements, people use their sense of how far they have managed to move towards the intended event.
The basic prediction formula developed by Rotter predicts goal-directed behavior in a particular situation using behavioral potential, expectations, reinforcement value, and psychological situation as variables.
Rotter suggested that sufficiently accurate predictions of people's behavior in specific situations can be made by analyzing four variables: behavioral potential, expectations, reinforcement value, and psychological situation. Behavioral potential refers to the likelihood of a given behavior occurring in a particular situation; expectations - a person's opinion about whether he will receive reinforcement; the value of reinforcement is the preference given by a person to a certain reinforcement; the psychological situation is a complex structure of signals that a person receives in a certain period of time.
In order to predict behavior over a wider range, Rotter proposed a general prediction formula that uses the concept of needs. Rotter sees needs not as a state of lack of something or anxiety, but as indicators indicating the direction of action.
Important in Rotter's theory are generalized expectations. To predict the possibility of receiving reinforcement in the present, people use similar past experiences, that is, they have generalized expectations of success.
Rotter coined the term locus of control to describe a person's generalized expectations about the extent to which reinforcements are dependent on their own behavior and to what extent they are controlled by external forces. To determine the extent to which people are aware of the relationship between their own actions and their consequences in the outside world, you can use the Internal and External Control Scale developed by Rotter to assess the locus of control or the degree of external and internal control over reinforcements.
An example of generalized expectations is trust in human relationships. Each individual, based on his experience, develops generalized expectations about whether the promises or threats of others will actually be followed by negative or positive reinforcement. To measure these differences, Rotter developed the Human Relationship Trust Scale. Distinguishing trust from gullibility, Rotter believes that a high level of trust in human relationships is necessary for the survival of civilization.
Julian Rotter (p. 19161
"Trust in human relations is the generalized expectation of a person as to how much one can rely on the words, promises, spoken or written statements of another person or group of people."
J. Rotter
The main provisions of the personality theory of J. Rotter are presented in fig. eleven.
Rice. P
Key Concepts
External reinforcement. Events, conditions, or activities that are valued by a person's social or cultural environment.
internal reinforcement. The contribution of a person's own perception to a positive or negative assessment of events.
Generalized (generalized) expectation. An expectation that goes beyond a specific situation, allowing past experience to be used to predict the possibility of further reinforcements. Generalized expectations are locus of control And interpersonal trust.
Trust in human relationships. Generalized (generalized) expectations of a person regarding how much one can rely on the words, promises or written statements of another person or group of people.
Locus of control. The term used by J. Rotter to describe a person's generalized (generalized) expectations regarding the extent to which reinforcements depend on his own behavior ( internal locus of control), and in some - controlled by forces from outside (external locus of control).
General formula for prediction. Determination of the probability of meeting a specific need. The potential of the need is a function of the freedom of activity and the value of the need. Allows you to predict behavior in everyday life.
expected consequence. An expectation based on previous experience that a certain behavior will lead to a specific consequence.
Expectation. A person's opinion about whether he will receive reinforcement; the probability, from the point of view of a person, that a certain reinforcement will occur as a result of specific actions on his part in a specific situation.
Basic Prediction Formula. Behavioral potential is a function of expectations and reinforcement value. It makes it possible to predict the purposeful behavior of a person in a particular situation.
Freedom of activity. The expectation that certain behaviors will result in reinforcers associated with one of six categories of needs.
Reinforcement. Any action, condition or event that influences the movement of a person towards a goal. Differ external And domestic
reinforcements. Reinforcements usually appear as chains of reinforcements, which can be thought of as groups of reinforcements.
behavior potential. The probability of a given behavior in a particular situation in relation to reinforcement.
Need potential. The probability that a given behavior will lead to the satisfaction of a particular category of needs.
Need. In J. Rotter's theory, it is almost synonymous with purpose. The author considers six categories of needs: recognition / status, dominance, independence, protection / dependence, love / affection, physical comfort. The need complex includes three components: the potential of the need, the freedom of activity, the value of the need.
psychological situation. Subjective perception of environmental factors by an individual.
Freedom of activity. Variable in general formula predictions, the average expectation of achieving positive satisfaction as a result of the implementation of actions aimed at obtaining reinforcements. Greater freedom of action reflects a person's expectation that a particular behavior will lead to success, while little freedom of action reflects a person's expectations that a particular behavior will be unsuccessful.
Reinforcement value. The degree to which, given an equal probability of receiving, we prefer one reinforcement over another.
Reinforcement value. The preference shown by a person to a certain reinforcement; the degree to which a person prefers one reinforcement over another if the probability of receiving each is equal.
Need value. The degree to which a person prefers one group of reinforcements to another; the relative desirability of different reinforcers associated with different categories of needs.
- 1. Sullivan G., Rotter J., Michel W. Theory interpersonal relationships and cognitive theories of personality / G. Sullivan, J. Rottsr, W. Michel. - St. Petersburg: Prime-EVROZNAK, 2007. - 128 p.
- 2. PervinL., John O. Psychology of personality: theory and research / L. Pervin, O. John; ed. V.S. Maguna. - M.: Aspect-Press, 2001.-607 p.
- 3. Frager R.. FeidymanJ. Personality: theories, experiments, exercises / R. Frager, J. Feidiman. - St. Petersburg: Prime-EURO-SIGN, 2002. - 864 p.
- 4. Khjell L, Ziegler D. Theories of personality / L. Kjell, D. Ziegler. - St. Petersburg: Peter, 2006.-607 p.
PSYCHOLOGY OF THE SUBJECT OF MANAGEMENT ACTIVITY
Subject of life and activity- a person who consciously and purposefully transforms the world and himself (initiator, creator, manager).
Human subjectivity- the ability of an individual to turn his own life activity into an object of practical transformation: - the ability to control his actions;
-really practically transform
reality;
- to plan ways of action;
- to implement the planned programs;
- control the progress and evaluate the results
Your actions.
The formation of the subject of life and activity is the process of assimilation by the individual of its main structural constituents: meaning, purpose, tasks, ways of transforming the objective world by a person.
Subject of management activity manifests its subjectivity in a number of dimensions (units of measurement of managerial behavior according to G. Yukl):
1) attention to discipline;
2) facilitating work;
3) problem solving;
4) goal setting;
5) role clarification;
6) emphasis on efficiency;
7) planning;
8) coordination;
9) delegation of autonomy;
10) preparation;
11) inspiration;
12) attention;
13) participation in the decision;
14) approval;
15) the possibility of varying remuneration;
16) promotion of communication;
17) representation;
18) work with information, its processing, dissemination of information;
Conflict management: transforming destructive conflicts into constructive ones.
Internality-externality (according to J. Rotter)
External or internal: where is the life control button?
USK - the level of subjective control
Locus of control[from lat. locus - place, location and French. contrôle - check] - a personal characteristic that reflects the predisposition and inclination of the individual to attribute responsibility for the successes and failures of his activity either to external circumstances, conditions and forces, or to himself, his efforts, his shortcomings, to consider them as his own achievements or the results of his own miscalculations, as well as simply the lack of appropriate abilities or shortcomings.
At the same time, this individual psychological characteristic is a fairly stable, poorly changeable personal quality, despite the fact that it is finally formed in the process of socialization. In many ways, this stability of the locus of control is due to the fact that it is almost directly related to such an indicator of the social orientation of the individual as externality (external, or external locus of control) and internality (internal, or internal locus of control). It is generally accepted that the very concept of "locus of control" was introduced into social psychology and personality psychology by the American psychologist D. Rotter. Subsequently, methodological tools were developed that allow the experimental psychologist, on the one hand, to determine the nature of the locus of control inherent in a particular subject, and on the other hand, to fix those patterns and dependencies that reveal the connection of this personal characteristic with others.
INTERNAL. A person with an internal locus of control. He is more self-confident, consistent, persistent in achieving his goals, prone to introspection, balanced, sociable, benevolent and independent. Organizational and communicative characteristics of the internal are well developed. High level of self-worth. Quite unambiguously in a number of experimental studies it has been shown that individuals demonstrating their commitment to internal locus of control, as a rule, have adequate self-esteem, they most often (if these are not purely situational circumstances) do not show unjustified anxiety, guilt and fear, they are inclined to a fairly consistent solution of the set tasks, they know how to stand up for themselves, are justifiably friendly to others, are sociable and are ready to interact on a partnership basis.
EXTERNAL. A person who is characterized by an external locus of control; they are often overly anxious and subject to unjustified frustration, unsure both in their abilities as a whole and in their individual capabilities, and therefore most often they are not ready to solve the tasks they face in the logic of "today and here", but rather tend to approach their solution according to scheme "tomorrow and somewhere." They manifest such characteristics as uncertainty in their abilities, imbalance, the desire to postpone the implementation of their intentions for an indefinite period, suspicion, conflict and aggressiveness. Organizational capabilities are minimal, the ability to communicate with people is deformed. In addition, they, as a rule, are not capable of personal self-determination in a group, adequate attribution of responsibility in conditions joint activities, demonstrate the absence of effective group identification. It should be specially noted that the locus of control of an individual often predetermines his status in the informal power structure of the community. Yes, in groups. high level socio-psychological development, most often it is the internal locus of control that turns out to be one of the reasons for the psychologically favorable position of the individual, while, for example, in corporate groupings, the external locus of control in combination with the official high power position, as a rule, characterizes the leader of the group.
Studies of the locus of control were carried out mainly using the internality-externality scale developed by J. Rotter. They allowed not only to specify the differences between internals and externals regarding the attribution of control over own life internal or external sources, but also revealed a number of interesting patterns. So, B. Strickland, K. Velstone and B. Velstone established, "... that internals are more likely than externals to actively seek information about possible problems health. Internals are also more likely than externals to take precautionary measures to preserve or improve their health, such as quitting smoking, starting to exercise, and seeing a doctor regularly. "This means that, contrary to the image created by some writers of a convinced fatalist who knee, who does not part with a glass and a pipe and is distinguished at the same time by phenomenal health, in fact, an external locus of control, among other things, significantly increases the risk of serious diseases.
Moreover, in the case of illness, the internal locus of control promotes recovery, while the external one, which generates in extreme cases, the so-called acquired helplessness syndrome, on the contrary, prevents it. As D. Myers notes in this regard, “in hospitals, “good patients” do not ring the bell, do not ask questions, do not control what is happening. Such passivity can be good for the “efficiency” of the hospital, but bad for people. and being in control of one's life contributes to health and survival."
The relationship between the type of locus of control and the mental health of the individual was also recorded. In particular, "research...shows that people with an external locus of control are more likely to have mental problems than people with an internal locus of control. For example, Fares reports that anxiety and depression are higher in externals, and self-esteem is lower than in internals." "Internals are also less likely to develop mental illness than externals. It has even been shown that suicide rates are positively correlated (r = 0.68) with the average level of externality in the population."
In addition, internality and externality are clearly related to the problem of conformism and nonconformism. According to L. Hjell and D. Ziegler, "... numerous studies show that externals are much more susceptible to social influence than internals. Indeed, Fares found that internals not only resist outside influences, but also, when the opportunity presents itself, they try to control the behavior of others.Internals also tend to like people they can manipulate and dislike those they can't influence.In short, internals seem to be more confident in their ability to solve problems than externals, and therefore independent of the opinions of others."
Given that all of the above suggests a conclusion about the preference of the internal locus of control over the external one, it would be deeply erroneous to perceive externality as a terrible and irreversible "curse", and internality, on the contrary, as a "blessing of the good fairy".
First of all, internality and externality are not personality traits- innate and unchanging. In his works "...Rotter clearly shows that externals and internals are not "types", since each has characteristics not only in its category, but also, to a small extent, another. A construct should be considered as a continuum that has at one end expressed “externality”, and on the other - “internality”, while people’s beliefs are located at all points between them, mostly in the middle. 312 It is this kind of "confusion" of internality and externality, characteristic of most people, that underlies the repeatedly experimentally recorded phenomenon known in social psychology as a predisposition in favor of one's self.
The essence of this phenomenon lies in the fact that people tend to see the reasons for their success in their own abilities, personal qualities, efforts, i.e. they use an internal locus of control and, on the contrary, attribute failures to the action of external causes, resorting to an external locus of control. At the same time, this is observed even in cases where the social cost of an error is negligible. In one study, fourth-year students studying psychology were asked to independently perform creative task medium degree difficulties. They were told that the assignment was optional, i.e. not mandatory, and failure to complete it would in no way affect the student's progress. As expected, the vast majority of students ignored the task. When answering the question about the reasons for not completing the task, less than 10% of respondents indicated internal determinants such as "unwillingness", "laziness", "lack of interest". All the rest referred to external circumstances - from the banal "lack of time" to the "bad character of the head of the university library." Those who completed the task, without exception, all justified their actions by internal reasons: the desire to learn something new, the habit of bringing everything to the end, interest, etc.
Thus, most people simultaneously have both internality and externality to one degree or another, and the boundary between them is mobile - in some cases, the internal locus of control dominates, in others the external locus of control. In addition, some modern research suggests that the predominance of internality or externality is due to social learning. So, in the course of studying the relationship between the locus of control and attitudes towards one's own health, R. Lo, "... comparing externals and internals, found that the latter were more encouraged by parents if they took care of their health - they kept to a diet, brushed their teeth well, were regularly shown to the dentist.As a result of this early experience internals are more aware than externals of what can cause illness and are more concerned about their health and well-being.”313 The task of psychotherapy, from the point of view of A. Bandura, in modern social psychology is directly related to the locus of control.
For a practical social psychologist, it is extremely important to take into account the fact that such an individual psychological characteristic as a locus of control in conditions of real interaction within a contact group is most often associated with the readiness and ability of specific members of society to adequately attribute responsibility for success and failure in joint activities and communication. .
Who are we - hostages of life circumstances or masters of our own destiny? What happens to us is the result of action external forces or our own activity (inactivity)? Each of us answers these questions differently. Depending on what answers we give to them, we are divided into externals and internals.
For the first time divided people into these two categories American psychologist Julian Rotter in the middle of the last century. He also introduced the concept of "locus of control", which characterizes the property of a person to attribute their successes or failures to internal or external factors.
The theory of social learning by D. Rotter is a concept of personality, which, following the theory of A. Bandura, emphasizes the role of motivational and cognitive factors in human learning. As Rotter himself wrote: “It is a social learning theory because it emphasizes the fact that the main or basic types of behavior can be learned in social situations, and these types of behavior are complexly connected with needs that require satisfaction in mediation with other people”
Julian Rotter believed that the basis of forecasting social behavior of a person in complex situations there are four variables interacting with each other (the material below is based on the presentation of Rotter's theory given by L. Hjell and D. Ziegler):
1. Potential for behavior. This term describes the likelihood of a given behavior "occurring in some situation or situations in connection with some one reinforcer or reinforcers" (quoted in Hjell and Ziegler, p. 412). These authors give the following example. For example, someone insulted you at a party. From the standpoint of the theory under consideration, several responses are possible. You can: demand an apology; do not pay attention to the insult and transfer the conversation to another topic; hit the offender in the face or just walk away. Each of these reactions has its own behavioral potential.
2. Waiting. Expectancy is the subjective likelihood that a certain reinforcement will occur as a result of a specific behavior. For example, when deciding whether to study for an exam on the weekends, you are likely to ask if these classes will help you do better on the exam. From Rotter's point of view, the magnitude of expectation power is based on previous experience of the same or similar situation and varies from 0% to 100%. That is, if exam preparation has helped you perform better in the past, then you will have a high expectation to pass again. Rotter's concept of expectation is to explain typical behavior for a person, which is repeated because the person was previously reinforced for such behavior in this situation. If a person is faced with a particular situation for the first time, then his behavior (and expectation) will be based on his experience in a similar situation.
Rotter argues that expectation can lead to consistent behaviors regardless of time and situation and, in fact, explains the stability and unity of the individual. When predicting a person's behavior, it is necessary to rely on his own subjective assessment of success and failure, and not on the assessment of someone else.
Rotter distinguishes between expectations that are specific to a particular situation and those that are most general or applicable to a range of situations. Rotter called the first type of expectations specific expectations. they reflect the experience of one specific situation and are not applicable to the prediction of behavior. The second type of expectations is generalized expectations. , reflect experience various situations and can be used to predict human social behavior. One such generalized expectation is the internal-external locus of control.
3. The value of reinforcement. This concept is defined as the degree to which an individual prefers one reinforcement to another given an equal probability of receiving it. So, for some, going to the cinema is important, and for others, going to the opera. The value of various reinforcements is, firstly, based on the experience of the individual, secondly, it depends on the situation, and thirdly, it changes over time. In addition, each person has a fairly stable commitment to one or another type of reinforcement, associated with a generally preferred behavior model.
4. Psychological situation. This variable represents the person's view of the psychological situation. What matters is not the objective interpretation of the situation, but how the individual himself imagines it, because it is the interpretation of the situation in certain terms that underlies the determination of the social behavior of the individual. Hjell and Ziegler, analyzing Rotter's theory, note that it is close to Bandura's theory, since in these theories "personal factors and environmental events in interaction best predict human behavior" (Hjell L., Ziegler D. Personality Theories, p. 415 ).
Thus, according to Rotter (1967), the main formula for predicting the social behavior of a person in a given social situation is the following formula: Behavior Potential = Expectation + Reinforcement Value.
Based on this formula, it is possible to predict the choice of alternative possibilities by a person at each specific moment of his life. To do this, it is necessary to know the value of the person's reinforcers associated with each possibility and her expectations regarding the reinforcers of each of the behavioral possibilities.
Also, considering people as purposeful individuals, Rotter paid great attention to the analysis of this or that social behavior of the individual. goals And needs person. It is the goals that determine the direction of human behavior in search of satisfaction of basic needs. Therefore, predicting the social behavior of a person, it is also necessary to rely on an analysis of his goals and needs. Rotter identifies six categories of needs that can be applied to the analysis of the social behavior of an individual:
Recognition status - the need to feel competent in various areas of life.
Protection-Dependence - the need for protection and assistance in achieving important goals for the individual.
Dominance - the need to influence the lives of others.
Hindependence - the need to take independent solutions and achieve goals without the help of others.
Love and affection - the need for acceptance and love from other people.
Physical comfort - physical health and pleasure needs.
Let us turn to the general formula for predicting human social behavior proposed by Rotter in 1982:
Need potential = freedom of action + need value
This formula contains two behavior factors. The first factor - the freedom of human activity is the general expectation of a person that this behavior will lead to the satisfaction of a need. The second factor is the value that a person attaches to a need associated with the expectation or achievement of some goals. Hjell and Ziegler, explaining Rotter's general forecasting formula, write that "man tends to strive for goals whose achievement will be reinforced, and the expected reinforcements will be of high value ... Provided that we know these facts, an accurate forecast is possible as to how a person will behave” (p. 419).
The central concept of Rotter's theory of social learning is the concept of "locus of control" of the individual. Locus of control is a personality variable, which is a generalized expectation by a person of what influences his behavior to a greater extent - his own actions (personality with internal locus of control) or a variety of external factors (personality with external locus of control). Rotter believed that externals and internals do not represent psychological types, since each individual can have characteristics not only of his own category, but also, to a small extent, of another. Such an idea of the locus of personality control as a scale that has a pronounced “externality” at one pole, and “internality” at the other, formed the basis of the “Internality-Externality Scale” constructed by Rotter in 1966.
The focus of the theory of social Rotter's learning lies in predicting human behavior in difficult situations. Rotter believed that it is necessary to predict the interactions of 4 changes. These changes include:
behavior potential. Rotter claims that the key of prediction incl. person will do in a given situation lies in understanding the potential behavior. The term refers to the probability of a given behavior "occurring in some situation or situations in connection with some one reinforcer or reinforcers."
Expectation. According to Rotter, expectation refers to subjective probability, incl. certain reinforcement will take place as a result of specific behavior. Rotter makes a distinction between those expectations that are most general and applicable to a range of situations. The first names specific expectations, they reflect the experience of one situation and are not acceptable to the prediction of behavior. Last names generalized expectations, they reflect the experience of various situations and are very suitable for studying the personality in Rotter's understanding.
Reinforcement value. Rotter defines the value of a reinforcement as the degree to which, given an equal probability of receiving, we prefer one reinforcement over another. Using this concept, he argues that people differ in their assessment of the importance of its results in a particular activity.
Psychological situation. The fourth variable used by Rotter is the psychological situation. Rotter argues that social situations are what observers perceive them to be. In this case, his point of view is very close to that of Carl Rogers. Like Rogers, Rotter is aware that if the given circumstances of the environment are perceived by a person in a certain way, then for him this situation will be exactly the way he perceives it, no matter how strange his interpretation may seem to others.
The main form of behavior prediction: behavior potential = expectation + reinforcement value.
Locus of control, a term used by Rotter, refers to whether people believe that reinforcement depends on their own behavior or is controlled by forces from outside (internal and external locus of control).
Basic principles humanistic psychology
Within its framework, the individual is seen as unique and holistic, open system, which is or is capable of being in the process of constant formation. A person is responsible for the realization of the opportunities given to him by life. Biological and social factors serve as the source, background and environment for human development and do not limit his free value choice and direction of development.
Metavalues and metaneeds (top values and needs) occupy a special place in humanistic psychology. To preserve the mental health of a person, it is necessary to help her choose a path of development in which these values and needs can be formed and be implemented. In this regard, the existential (life and meaningful) experience of each individual acquires special importance and uniqueness.
Within the framework of this psychology, a system of concepts and principles has been developed that have proven their practical effectiveness both in psychotherapy and in understanding the essence of the human psyche and individual behavior.
Humanistic psychology is important component theory and worldview of modern humanism.
The basic principles of humanistic psychology can be summarized as follows.
1. Each person really lives only in the present moment (here-and-now), and it is this moment, which includes the past-in-the-present and the future-in-the-present, that is essential for him. "Past-in-present" and "future-in-present" reflect the fact that both the past and the future are given to a person only in the present, the only real time of his objective existence. In the inner world of a person there is a subjective or existential time, in which the connection of times is even more complex. However, it is obvious that our memory and imagination are directly related to the past and the future, respectively.
2. A person is free to feel, experience, perceive life in his own way, and therefore he is responsible for his actions.
3. Human nature cannot be defined in an exhaustive way, since its essential feature is not only what a person does, but also how he does it. A person is not only what he is, but also who he can be, i.e. he is not just a substance, but also a project, becoming, promise, hope, dream and ideal. He strives for development, and the possibilities of his growth, a breakthrough beyond the boundaries of what already exists, are endless.
4. A person must recognize the right of others to independently and freely create their own life, to appreciate inner world another man.
5. Any experience in a person’s life, even assessed by a person as negative, is a useful, significant and already inseparable from the inner life of an individual experience of a person, worthy of respect and confessions - at least as a lesson, which may have cost us dearly, but which saves us from many mistakes in the present and future.
